MBDA has successfully completed a qualification firing of the GRIFO air defence system, incorporating the CAMM-ER (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile – Extended Range) missile, for the Italian Army.

This system is part of the Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions (EMADS) family and aims to enhance the short-range air defence (SHORAD) capabilities of the Italian Army with extended range.

The GRIFO system, featuring the advanced CAMM-ER missile, has a vertical launch capability which, say the firm, provides 360° air defence coverage.

The recent tests included the first successful integration and qualification of the system’s Command Post and Engagement Module (PCMI – Posto Comando Modulo di Ingaggio) with a missile launcher and the CAMM-ER missile. During the tests, the system was evaluated against a target drone simulating an enemy aircraft attack, which it successfully neutralised.

The GRIFO system’s PCMI, equipped with an MBDA Command & Control system, a Rheinmetall Italia X-TAR3D radar, and a Leonardo identification friend or foe (IFF) system, detected, identified, and classified the incoming threat before successfully launching the CAMM-ER missile.

The tests also confirmed the effective operation of the two-way datalink between the missile and the ground system, essential for accurate command and control during operations.

Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

93 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817826)
9 days ago

Ok, I’ll bite first! 😁 Question is now where’s the Anglo-Polish CAMM-MR GBAD at? Wouldn’t it similar to the Grifo or, even better…? Lol 😁

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817832)
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The uses CAMM-MR and maybe other flavours too.

It could use any radars to create and air picture……the air picture could be synthetic…….from a number of sensors and systems…….

Things is the command and control then has to talk to the launcher and the launcher to the missile……as CAMM already does that all that is being tested are ranges……

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817837)
9 days ago

Evening SB, I was wondering why the UK didn’t go in with the Italians on this as they already have the Naval Albatross system. Maybe the Anglo Polish MR is even longer range than the ER? I think it is. There’s a bit of catching up on this for the UK as isn’t it going into the T31? And also for Sky Sabre GBAD?

Last edited 9 days ago by Quentin D63
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817844)
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

We don’t really know.

Army orders 10 x of the Sky Sabre with CAMM and in usual army way said we need something better – even though CAMM is massively better than RAPIER ever was.

So I would *guess* the next iteration of Sky Sabre would involve CAMM-MR.

I’d also be unsurprised to see CAMM-MR and CAMM together on RN ships taking over from A15.

All of it makes sense, works and can be made in the UK.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_817899)
8 days ago

Issue CAMM-MR would not be able to fit into CAMM/CAMM-ER cells due to even larger booster.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817913)
8 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

That is a given – either it gets longer or fatter with range – usually longer and fatter! Unless you can increase the power density of propellants.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_817988)
8 days ago

The US seem to be having some success at the latter with their in development/under test missiles though little concrete about the advances has been reported as yet just that range is being increased by such developments. The AMRAAM replacement is one such missile with similar dimensions to its older sibling but far greater range reportedly.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_817994)
8 days ago

Hi SB, see above. Basically CAMM-MR is a fatter version of the ER.

DJ
DJ (@guest_818153)
7 days ago

I understand that the Sky-Sabre system already allows for CAMM-ER integration (ie it’s dual capable from the get go).

Leh
Leh (@guest_817953)
8 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Maybe, we need the stop pouring money into indigenous VLS systems and go for the Mk41, which can quad-pack CAMM and CAMM-ER, and double-pack CAMM-MR. More efficient and probably cheaper, but it would increase reliance on the USA.

Andrew Deacon
Andrew Deacon (@guest_817972)
8 days ago
Reply to  Leh

For ships yes (though CAMM only needs a basic VLS) but for mobile air defence units mk41 would likely be far to heavy and expensive

expat
expat (@guest_818349)
7 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

I though the US Army had MK41 on a truck bed? I think its called Typhon uses a MK41 launch system and can fire SM6 and Tomahawk

Andrew Deacon
Andrew Deacon (@guest_818384)
6 days ago
Reply to  expat

Quite possibly but it’s a massive overkill for a local air defence like CAMM

Chris
Chris (@guest_818006)
8 days ago
Reply to  Leh

BAE/MBDA/Babcock can build the Mk41 domestically. It has been licensed several times. The cost will go up, as none of them have the facilities configured to build it.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818035)
8 days ago
Reply to  Leh

I fail to grasp how in a square you can put 2 but not 4.

MK 41 should only allow 1 CAMM-MR.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818056)
8 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

For things like EXLS it is possible that the canisters are circular rather than square or that they are in a joint twin canister. In that case it becomes a circle packing problem and two larger circles do indeed fit in a square.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818255)
7 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

If CAMM-MR have a square cruciform section like i suspect, a circular canister will not give it more space than a square canister.

Martin L
Martin L (@guest_818306)
7 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

For a circular missile of x diameter you need a square 2x by 2x to hold four.

If you only fit two circular missiles into a box 2x by 2x then each one is effectively fitting in a triangle either top left or bottom right. Each missile can be larger than x diameter.

I can’t do the calculation in my head but it’s about 20% larger diameter at a guess which gives 44% larger volume for the same length.

Going to a single missile you get 100% larger diameter and 300% larger volume.

Martin L
Martin L (@guest_818310)
7 days ago
Reply to  Martin L

Done the sums 17% larger diameter and 37% larger volume

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_818100)
8 days ago
Reply to  Leh

But you don’t need a Mk41 to launch CAMM. CAMM comes in its own launch container. CAMM cannisters on a ship are exactly the same as an Army CAMM canisters in Sky Sabre. They are even painted green! If you want to spend 15+mi USD on a 8 cell Mk41 that isnt needed to launch a CAMM knock yourself out. Personally I would rather put something in it that does need a Mk41 to launch it. To get a Mk41 to launch CAMM you would still need the current CAMM missile interface unit to be bolted to the Mk41 interface… Read more »

DJ
DJ (@guest_818166)
7 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Stand alone ExLS I get. ExLS inside standard mk41 I don’t get. Why would you bother? (Actually, standard single cell CAMM, other than T23,I don’t get). A cold launch missile system is relatively simple. Hot launch missile system is not so simple. Why would you fit a simple system into a difficult system? KISS. Each has their strengths & weaknesses, don’t try & combine the two,

DJ
DJ (@guest_818156)
7 days ago
Reply to  Leh

No reason that other systems can’t do the same. While it may not seem like it, mk41 is not the only system in existence.

DJ
DJ (@guest_818160)
7 days ago
Reply to  Leh

Mk41 is designed from the ground up to be multi missile capable (ie basically anything that will fit). It’s always cheaper to build to suit a limited range, especially if closely related. CAMM, CAMM-ER, CAMM-MR etc makes it easy. Mk 41 can handle it, but if that’s the limit of your options, cheaper alternatives may be appropriate.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_818099)
8 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

CAMM in whatever form, regular, medium or extended(!) comes in its own launch cannister. It does not need something like a Mk41 to hold it although it will go in it. The current CAMM on T23 has a simple support and locking mechanism to hold the cannister at the deck level inside the magazine and at the deck head level in the magazine. The mushrooms on a T23 are simple extension pieces to cover and support the top of the cannister because its longer than the legacy Seawolf cannisters it replaced so it pokes up through the deck head. So… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818257)
7 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Gunbuster, i was just commenting on assertion that 2 CAMM could fit into MK41 but not 4.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_818327)
7 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

No probs.
But with a hole in the deck able to take a simple CAMM cannister its even easier ( And Cheaper!) to fit CAMM.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818712)
6 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Agreed.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817900)
8 days ago

CAMM-MR is up to 10 years away according to PGZ in Poland. CAMM-ER is on the UK shopping list. The Commander of 7 AD Regt has said as much…. The interesting thing is that the RN and Army use the same stockpile of missiles…..so if ER is in there for the Army it should also be available for the Navy… We just have to hope that the RN have been sensible and left a little growth margin in the allowances for the length of Sea Ceptor cells…there certainly should be space on T45, but not sure on T26 and T31…… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817916)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Things can go very fast when there is pressure!

Long range complex engagements are what A30 is optimised for.

No point in expending A30 on a slow moving low evasion target – use a cheaper missile – horses for courses.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817925)
8 days ago

It’s a real pity that we didn’t go with the 16 Mk.41 behind the gun with T45…space for 64 CAMM/CAMM-ER plus the 48 Aster 30 would really make T45 exceptional. Plus NSM and the ability to use CAMM-MR in the future….she might reach close to her potential, just need some cheap CAMM-SR… (although for me she will always miss the TMF 155mm on the front…).

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817936)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Be thankful we got the best AAW destroyer out there that was big and upgradable and that upgrades are in the works….NSM is funded…..Sea Ceptor funded. It could be a lot worse.

DJ
DJ (@guest_818179)
7 days ago

Could have been a lot better. No problem with lack of 16 Mk 41. So where is the alternative eg 12 x ExLS stand alone system, that could have fielded 48 CAMM / or CAMM- ER? Numbers matter (ask Ukraine). 24 is a very poor outcome.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_818186)
7 days ago
Reply to  DJ

Money matters.

RN only has so much budget.

I’m sure RN would love to add Mk41 and CAMM and NSM.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817938)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

The MK41s should still be possible. I 100% agree, it’s such a bloody obvious upgrade. Why not pinch some of the MK41s for the T31s and get it happening sooner. It could be so useful for the T45s to carry a mix of non Aster missiles and the slots are already there. They can move the gym to the back somewhere! And 24 CAMM only, wish they’d think a bit bigger, get it up to 36 or 48! Plenty of room if they look for it. It’ll be well worth it in its CSG and long deployment roles.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_818154)
7 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The RN missed a trick by not going for the 12 MK 41 VLS they have room for. That way they could quad pack Sea Ceptor. 48 Sea Ceptor and 41 Aster 30 block 1/1NT would be formidable. Instead we only got 24 extra …. The Mk 41 could have offered a mix of extra missile options Sea Ceptor ER/MR.

DJ
DJ (@guest_818184)
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Mk 41 tends to be utilised in a 8 (2×4) cell block (believe it’s even available in single cell, but why bother?) ExLS systems were based around CAMM, However CAMM has its own launch controller (as does TLAM BTW), which can only control 12 missile launches. Hence stand alone ExLS is in 3 cell x 4 missile configuration.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_818192)
7 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I’m sure it is being agonised over as we write on here.

It is a balance between having ships out of service for longer having more systems fitted and having more deployable ships. Oh, and yes MONEY!

So no I wouldn’t slow up Mk41 fitting to T31 as we need a fully armed T31 fleet ASAP.

I’d be spending the money on controlling missiles from a T31 Mk41 VLS from T45’s CMS.

BTW I do see T45 getting Mk41 VLS but this may emerge slowly from the budget rounds.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817948)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

CAMM-MR 10 years away!? Isn’t that too long to wait? Surely they and MBDA should know enough to make it sooner? It’s kind of making getting CAMM-ER quite pressing then. Also the UK is wanting hypersonics for into service by 2030, that’s less than 6 years away which seems very quick in comparison.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_818051)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM-MR development needs a customer willing to pay the price. Missile development is not cheap. Currently there is no customer willing to do that.

Andrew Deacon
Andrew Deacon (@guest_817974)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

MBDA are upgrading French Aster 15 and nearly doubling the range , I wonder if this will change RN plans

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817980)
8 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

Doubt it.
Re-lifing our Aster 15 to Aster 30 doubles our long range firepower.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_817914)
8 days ago

It’s been stated that the iLauncher part of Sky Sabre can accommodate the extra length of the CAMM-ER canister with no modification , so the issue is probably just that we haven’t bought any rather than problems with ER being an Italian missile .

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817922)
8 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

iLauncher has plenty of space. It’s essentially the same unit used for the Polish Narew system as well which will fire CAMM-ER.

In fact it will probably be able to carry CAMM-MR as well. There is around 1.5m free at the front for additional length, and if we accept an overhang there will be space.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817949)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

I like to see MBDA develop a Iron Dome 4*5 (or is it 5*4?,lol) type launcher for CAMM for 20 shots off a trailer type platform. Big step up from just 8. Maybe not so mobile but good for a GBAD station.

Jon
Jon (@guest_817952)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I’d rather see them develop the naval CAMM VLS to accept quad-packed. It wouldn’t even need to be that much bigger.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_817995)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

MBDA have showcased a drop in launcher. Which was designed for logistics ships, troop transports and civilian ships called up for service. It looks like a mini-iso, but contains 16 CAMMs, along with the power supplies and a telescoping antenna for the data link. The idea is that an escort ship would control the CAMM via data-link. Thereby negating the need for ship to have a compatible CMS and search radar. Plus the crew to man the station. You could I guess increase the size of the container, to include more CAMM. MBDA did also show this container being used… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818106)
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Okay, thanks info l this. I was wondering about (palletised?) trays of CAMM inside containers. 16 is pretty decent and useful multiplier and as you say can go anywhere a container can go sea, land, rail, road. Wonder if this will get into their thinking with the UK’s GBAD mix?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_818194)
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Exactly what I’ve been prattling on about for RFA, STUFT & base protection.

DJ
DJ (@guest_818195)
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I mentioned this idea several years ago. The idea of LSUV currently being developed by USN misses the point. You don’t need dedicated ships to achieve this.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_817993)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

In terms of missile size evidenced by models seen at shows etc. CAMM-MR is about the same length as CAMM-ER. But has a wider rocket motor diameter. If you look at CAMM-ER, this uses the CAMM’s front end. But then marries it to a longer but slightly wider rocket motor. Which is why it can still be fired from a standard width container. For Land Ceptor, CAMM-ER can be fitted alongside the legacy CAMM. Thereby maintaining 8 missiles per vehicle. CAMM-MR takes this a stage further. Images show it still uses CAMM’s front end, but the rocket motor is bigger… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818103)
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Random thought based on comments above: What would happen if you stuck CAMM-MR, or similar, on top of the A30 booster, as you imply at the end? Wouldn’t that become effectively an SM-6 equivalent? I know that Aster includes a small sustainer but if we take the mach 4 of Aster, then add the CAMM-MR which presumably does mach 3 or thereabouts and use it as a sustainer, that probably goes near-hypersonic with the truckload of delta-V that the booster gives you. I have no idea how that would affect range, but it would surely be much greater than current… Read more »

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_818230)
7 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

To put it bluntly CAMM-ER weighs around 166kg, whereas SM-6 weighs 1500kg. I think the CAMM-MR is going to be close to 200kg. By comparison Aster 15 weighs 310kg and 30 weighs 450kg. The majority of SM-6’s weight is from the mass of the propellent. Which is why it can reach over 125,000ft. However, CAMM weighs 99kg, whilst the 2nd stage dart of Aster 15/30 weighs 112kg. So if you strap the Aster’s 338kg 1st stage to a CAMM. Firstly, there is less mass for the 1st stage to push. Secondly CAMM is a lot less draggy than Aster. So… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818233)
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

I understand that CAMM itself would give a marginal gain due to being smaller and lighter than the dart. I was wondering whether with the much heavier CAMM-MR the larger dart would balance out the lower booster acceleration by allowing a much faster cruise speed.
The idea was for a missile that used the new space available in mk41 to drastically increase the ranges and altitudes at which aircraft can be engaged.
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to compete with SM-6 but it’s on the way there, more of the SM6 to Aster’s SM2.

David
David (@guest_818262)
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

All that would assume.that Camm airframe could handle the huge increases in forces from the larger booster, which it was never designed for and the increased velocity and heat. Not to mention how a cold launch missike then separates from said booster. I suspect it wouldn’t. Aster uses large fins and PIFPAF to manouver. Camm lacks that so at high altitude it is doubtful it would give much of a NEZ. It simply isn’t designed for it. Playing hypothetical it may be better to see a booster mated to Meteor which is designed to reach Mach 4 plus and manouver… Read more »

Oli G
Oli G (@guest_820368)
27 minutes ago
Reply to  David

Can’t we just shove a larger booster on Aster 30 to hugely increase range?/ increase significantly. One that could make use of Strike Mk41 (7m one)

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818109)
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

The Aster 30 can do Mach 4.5 but I don’t think the CAMM is as fast, Mach 3-3.5?,
Maybe the MR might be able to go as fast and high? Sounds like exciting times for CAMM development and thinking beyond Aster and the utilisation of the MK41s coming on the T26, T31 and possibly T32 and T83. Hope the UK industry remains supported this and gets some good home and export sales for it.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818245)
7 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Honestly, MBDA should hire us to dream up random variants to make of CAMM. Every so often we get to watch a missile test and make fun ideas.
Wouldn’t work for DB, I think he already does this sort of thing.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818304)
7 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Morning SB, Lol. 😆 Thanks for talking us up but I don’t feel qualified at all for the job. Good questions to and great replies from DB!
You do wonder if MBDA or any other manufacturers do look at ukdj for all our wonderful ideas and suggestions!!? 🤔

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818334)
7 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the defence civil servants and the people at BAE, MBDA and the like read this site. It is after all an industry publication. Not sure how many of the readers go through the comments.
Perhaps we set up a spike; put a very specific missile type here and then wait for an announcement from MBDA that they are “looking into it”.
Trust me Quentin, I am the least qualified person here. Everything I know is from sites like this, Google or books I read.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_818342)
7 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Lol, here’s hoping MBDA gets back to us on UKDJ soon…😁

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817831)
9 days ago

So is this the Italian version of Sky Sabre?

JamesF
JamesF (@guest_817838)
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes but uses a longer ranged version of missile with an Italian booster rocket. CAMM is radar and combat system agnostic so uses different systems to ask Sabre. However the ER missile will be integrated into the Anglo-Polish Narew system.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817839)
9 days ago
Reply to  JamesF

Still cold launched though, right?

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_818215)
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes, all three version of CAMM are cold launched.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818713)
6 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

CAMM-MR is a paper missile for now, i don’t think a specific configuration have been closed.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817906)
8 days ago
Reply to  JamesF

CAMM-ER is also going on their T31 derivative ships. Suspect Narew will also carry CAMM interchangeable with CAMM-ER.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817840)
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I believe it is and with a longer range being MR? Someone here will confirm.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817877)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM
CAMM-ER
CAMM-MR

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817903)
8 days ago

If I can be flippant, weren’t some of us discussing a hypothetical low cost and shorter “CAMM-Mini” the other day, a hybrid of CAMM, Starstreak and Martlet/LMM? We could go in with an all-in-one with a “CAMM-OLOT”?
Okay, I’ll get my coat…

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_817934)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM-BMD?
Stick the kill vehicle from SM-3 on the end of CAMM-MR?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817940)
8 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

That might be asking a bit toooo much!… Lol😆

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_817965)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Just maybe, yes 😉
I wonder, though, given that CAMM became CAMM-ER with the same quad packing, whether we will see an even larger and longer-ranged CAMM-XR or similar that can reach nearly out to Aster distances.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817970)
8 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

On that note things “CAMM” only get better… Lol 😁. and “It’s a good night from me and it’s good night from him”.
I miss the Two Ronnie’s. They really made me 😂.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_817998)
8 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

To reach a similar range to Aster 30 1NT. CAMM would need a similar 1st stage booster. The current designs all show the ER and MR versions as a unitary (one piece) missile. Which means compared to Aster’s 2 stage system. It will have more drag after CAMM’s motor has burnt out. You could design CAMM as a multiple stage missile. But you are not taking advantage of the launchers presumed larger dimensions. To maiximize the range, you want to use the biggest fuel tank for your rocket motor. Which means matching the diameter to what the launcher can accommodate.… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818053)
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I wasn’t thinking quite as far as 1NT, but Block 0 is supposed to do 120km and that seems realistic with the sort of range increases we got with CAMM-ER.
Aster has always looked to me to be quite a draggy missile, with a lightweight dart with loads of fins and stuff. I suppose it might work differently at mach 3 but I know which of that or CAMM I could throw further.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_818139)
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

A plus for CAMM is that its cold launched so its actually in the air when the motor fires. You haven’t used motor fuel getting it into the air.
As Daveyb says CAMM is not ASTER 30 and you are going to be overcomplicating it by making it 2 stage. You could do a cold launch Meteor type propulsion I suppose using the same throttling rocket motor but again you are overcomplicating it.

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_818229)
7 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

With Meteor, even though it has a solid rocket booster in the exhaust. I don’t believe it has enough fuel to accelerate it through Mach 1 and then to Mach 1.5 from the surface, even if cold launched. When you add the energy from the launch aircraft this is no longer a problem. For ground launched missiles, the sound barrier is a major problem, as you need shed loads of additional energy to overcome the significant rise in drag. But once past Mach 1.2, you don’t need as much energy to keep accelerating (though it helps!). In the surface launched… Read more »

JamesF
JamesF (@guest_817908)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM is 25km class, CAMM-ER 45km and CAMM-MR planned to deliver 100km. These figures are probably underestimates as OPSEC.

JamesF
JamesF (@guest_817917)
8 days ago
Reply to  JamesF

CAMM and CAMM ER can be quad packed into Mk 41 or ExLs VLS, CAMM MR will be dual-packed into Mk 41 for Polish frigates.

All of this begs question whether T31 and T26 should be outfitted with all Mk 41 or mix of Mk 41 and ExLs (ExLs is Mk 41 derived but designed for soft launched CAMM – selected by Canada).

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817976)
8 days ago
Reply to  JamesF

There were images of earlier models of the T26 showing 2*24 ExLS and also for the T23. If only. The MK41s might be a bit wasted on the CAMM and too heavy and expensive. The crowd who designed the six CAMM silo pad, they could rework these into something bigger or more compact, maybe into 8s,12s, or 16s to better utilise their space footprint.And a question, could the UK even make the MK41 under licence and the MK57(?) for bigger missiles?

Last edited 8 days ago by Quentin D63
Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817909)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM – Cold launch ‘up to 25km’ according to MBDA…in reality 40km and can reach 60 km with a co-operating target according to Janes… CAMM-ER – Cold launch ‘up to 45km’ according to MBDA…but see above, in reality its probably >60km with reach out to 80km… CAMM-MR – Cold launch (dual packed on Mk.41 only seen so far)….>100km seen in material to date…. Worth noting that the CAMM-MR rocket motor has around 120% more space than CAMM-ER….so its likely that >100km is more like 150km….SM-2, which can also be dual packed in Mk.41 (although no-one has actually paid for it)… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817942)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

That’s a lot of choice and potential to work with with CAMM.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817951)
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

And for the Meteor too. If the Meteor does Mach 4.5, it’s not far off being hypersonic.

David
David (@guest_817875)
8 days ago

I read a Twitter post where report from the Swiss Air defence competition was discussed. Camm ER was deemed to lack energy at the longer range enabling a manoeuvring target to evade when compared to systems such as the medium range version of the German IRIS T and upgraded Nasams ( which has ESSM body) . Simpler cold launch etc is ERs selling point and ease of integration.. That may be the problem in expecting too much from Camm and maybe why both the UK and Polish seem set on Camm MR. Which would be a bigger missile with 2… Read more »

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_817920)
8 days ago
Reply to  David

CAMM-ER will outperform IRIS-T SLS and SLM. The only way that makes sense is if the Swiss were comparing it to the (under development) IRIS-T SLX which would sit between the CAMM-ER and MR in performance. Polands interest in MR is mainly because they want a share of the industrial benefits that they won’t really get with CAMM and CAMM-ER. But also because they need a low cost interceptor alongside PAC-3 MSE. They were looking at the Israeli Davids Sling interceptor (in its SkyCeptor PAAC-4 guise)…unfortunately the cost was too high. You might read that PAAC-4 was 20% of the… Read more »

David
David (@guest_817983)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Only the manufacturers will know if one will out perform the other. Claims that one missile will travel X distance depends on the actual target. Camm may well reach far more than 25km against a predictable non manoeuvring target, that doesn’t mean it will against another threat or a high speed crossing target at 20km distance

The Germans at least have seen the sense to field test their missiles in Ukr.
Its a highly comp market. Korea for instance has a variety of interceptors on offer.

Armchair Admiral bedt missile at 100...150...2000
Armchair Admiral bedt missile at 100...150...2000 (@guest_818119)
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

The question for me is, what will be the best missile at these long ranges being quoted?
Aster has a much superior maouvering system at the end game (piff paff) and was dedigned to achieve long range at speed from the outset.
Simply strapping a big fat booster on to camm to get the range…does this make it comparable to an Aster?
I would hate to think that the treasury would scrap Aster just because it appears that camm can do the same thing at range.
Let’s not talk about camm-bmd…surely a step much too far?
AA

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_819153)
4 days ago

Aster won’t be scrapped. We’re upgrading all missiles to the Aster 30 Block 1 NT on T45. CAMM will essentially replace Aster 15, allowing all the Aster 15 to be converted to Aster 30 1 NT standard, which will double the RN’s long range missile stockpile. CAMM series are far, far cheaper than Aster so for short to medium range engagements it make a lot of sense. There is definitely an appreciation that the end game on Aster at long range is superior. But…if we ever get around to building a ground launched Meteor, and call it CAMM-LR that could… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_817971)
8 days ago

Has anyone else noticed that CAMM-ER looks a lot like a miniature SM-2?
MBDA’s website makes it look like it has a much longer and thinner nose, but somewhere between concept and testing the missile has grown a fatter nose and the strakes are further forwards on the body.
This implies that we can’t take too much away from CAMM-MR’s current appearance with a large bulge around the rocket fuel as it may yet become more cylindrical.

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral (@guest_818232)
7 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Are they reinventing the wheel (Aster) by giving camm a really long range? To my mind Aster with its piff paff terminal.manouvering must be superior to camm at the sort of very long ranges and speeds being bandied about.
The worry might be to see camm-er/MR as an Aster substitute…but is it? Just because it “might” reach out to whatever distance, is that enough?
AA

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_818239)
7 days ago

I don’t think CAMM-MR is an Aster replacement, despite the comparable range, for the reasons you suggest it would be very, very silly to consider it as such. No doubt Aster’s no-escape zone (is that a thing for SAMs?) significantly exceeds any possible CAMM variant. What things like CAMM-MR do is allow frigates like T26 and T31, that would normally only carry self defence weapons, to provide area defence without a T45. I can imagine a T31 especially carrying CAMM-MR in mk41 and providing coverage to an LRG that doesn’t merit a T45 but otherwise receives area coverage because CAMM-MR… Read more »

Steve
Steve (@guest_818122)
8 days ago

Admittedly it was a defence contractor that stated this and so super biased but during a parliamentary committee it was stated the UK air defences are totally incapable due to lack of numbers across the board.

Unfortunately wasn’t really picked up by the main stream media.

This really needs to get resolved before the UK gets involved in tbe next US proxy war. We can’t just rely on the US covering us as they also have limitations.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_818260)
7 days ago
Reply to  Steve

He was not biased you only have to look at numbers.
Outside the RAF fighters the only air defence in UK are the 4 Sky Sabre batteries. A Sky Sabre battery can be split in 2 because a battery have 2 radars so, You have 8 half batteries. 1 half is in Falklands and another half in Poland i think. So currently there are 3 Sky Sabre batteries in UK.

An half battery should be a radar and 2-3 truck launcher vehicles each with 8 CAMM.
So enemy send in 16 or 24 cheap drones and it is saturated.

Last edited 7 days ago by AlexS